Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Obama negotiates "peace in his time"...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

    Interesting thread.

    So; channeling Nevel Chamberlin . . . Is it just possible - possible I say that Chamberlin went to Germany because the German Hanrovians were - by blood members of the English crown, and there Chamberlin was obligated to make an offering? I mean; sounds like a good strategy to me. Time Magazine made Adolph Man of the Year right?

    So, now with Iran: New president. Isn't it just possible that with new leadership, there might be a foreign policy obligation to make an offering? Whether Iran is lying or not, just as with Chamberlian and Hitler, is not the point. From a strategic and policy perspective, the onus of said agreements are now on Iran. It i up to them to live up to the obligation. You say they won't? Could be, but because - we were the bigger country, we have the more honorable position. Reagan negotiated and signed agreements with the Soviets yeah? So, were the Soviets lying . . .? And when agreement was reached, everybody cheered right?

    So I find the anti Obama logic to be flawed; based on nothing really. Moreover, Israel has nothing to say about who we treaty with anad who we don't. And! Saudi Aribia is no friend of ours. They've been playin us like a patsy for years!

    And as for Syria; It's the Russian overseers watching the piggy bank there, so again, the anti Obama logic is flawed.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #32
      Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      "Blessed are the peacemakers"

      I don't expect anyone who leans right to like this. I don't expect the right to like it even if it turns out well for all involved. They will not like anything Obama is involved in. But they will not be the final judge, thank god, history will. And personally I hope history proves them wrong, not because I like Obama but because I am sick and tired of these never ending wars, and the killing of americans who joined the military to defend americans and America. We have not had a war in defense since ww2. We have even told lies to get into some of these non defensive wars.

      And so I applaud these attempts by this administration. If the attempts fail, well at least we tried. Blessed are the peacemakers.
      In what way does this "deal" bring peace to the region, or Iran? Just what brand of "peace" are you seeking here?

      Peace is not merely the absence of open warfare. To borrow from Wikipedia...
      Peace is a sign of harmony characterized by the lack of violence, conflict behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence. Commonly understood as the absence of hostility, peace also suggests the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the establishment of equality, and a working political order that serves the true interests of all.
      By that definition, the Iranian people do not even have peace with their own government, what make you think the Iranian government will make peace with the Saudi's, the Israelis, or us. The Ayatollahs maybe insane, but they are not stupid, they know the best shot they have to not only rid the world of the so called Zionist occupier, but secure their own hides, is to get nuclear weapons. How do they know? Just look North Korea, who gets away with murder on a regular basis without effective retaliation, but because they have the nuclear umbrella. With a deterrent of its own, whats to stop Iran, who already supports terror across the region, from expanding it's sphere of influence, except an all out exchange with the US or Israel, which will harm many innocent bystanders. Everyone else recognizes this, except Obama and his apologists. Thats why the Saudis have threatened to buy Pakistani bombs if Iran goes nuclear.

      What we have instead is a short term "deal" where the Iranians give up little of substance, and gain relief from sanctions that threatened the stability of the regime. Worst they gain legitimacy for their uranium enrichment program, and because of that others in the region will seek a deterrence. Doesn't sound like a recipe for peace to me, just a stronger facade.

      Obama had his chance to make real peace with Iran. The Green Revolution in 2009. He blew it. Now he can only man up and militarily remove Iran's nuclear program, stand aside and let the Saudi's and Israelis do it for him, or do nothing but continue to obstruct, and pray the Iranian are not close enough for his ineptitude to make a difference.

      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      The only real threat that faces the US today is communist china. That is where all of our attention should be directed, instead of these backwater nations in the middle east. China is a real and present danger going into the future. And the size of the military they could muster with 1.5 billion people should be our concern, instead of being so distracted by these back water nations in the deserts of the middle east.
      If you are worried about China, which is certainly legitimate, then you should take an interest in their oil supply, and how, if the need arose, you could disrupt their supply. That would be the middle east.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #33
        Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
        I have no clue why anyone here would believe the Mullahs or why any of them would believe Obama or Kerry. Did he promise them that if they liked their nukes they could keep their nukes?
        On a similar note, I have to wonder why Obama (et al) can negotiate and reason with the most intransigent, intractible, violent, terrorist governments ... but somehow cannot make any inroads in any way with Republicans.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #34
          Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

          Originally posted by jet57 View Post
          Interesting thread.

          So; channeling Nevel Chamberlin . . . Is it just possible - possible I say that Chamberlin went to Germany because the German Hanrovians were - by blood members of the English crown, and there Chamberlin was obligated to make an offering? I mean; sounds like a good strategy to me. Time Magazine made Adolph Man of the Year right?

          So, now with Iran: New president. Isn't it just possible that with new leadership, there might be a foreign policy obligation to make an offering? Whether Iran is lying or not, just as with Chamberlian and Hitler, is not the point. From a strategic and policy perspective, the onus of said agreements are now on Iran. It i up to them to live up to the obligation. You say they won't? Could be, but because - we were the bigger country, we have the more honorable position. Reagan negotiated and signed agreements with the Soviets yeah? So, were the Soviets lying . . .? And when agreement was reached, everybody cheered right?

          So I find the anti Obama logic to be flawed; based on nothing really. Moreover, Israel has nothing to say about who we treaty with anad who we don't. And! Saudi Aribia is no friend of ours. They've been playin us like a patsy for years!

          And as for Syria; It's the Russian overseers watching the piggy bank there, so again, the anti Obama logic is flawed.
          Sure cause that's what selling out the czechs was about. "making an offer" for form's sake because yall are distantly related. Riiiighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.

          We should just pull all foreign aid or government monies spent on nations that don't toe the line we set. "No ticky no laundry" to quote the departed.
          We shouldn't be supporting the israelis the saudis or the iranians. Let them handle their own shit.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #35
            Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

            Originally posted by reality View Post
            We shouldn't be supporting the israelis the saudis or the iranians. Let them handle their own shit.
            Including one or more of them nuking one or more of the others? You do know that's where this will all lead, right?

            If 'we all' are good with a 'small' nuclear war with millions dead... then yeah, that works.

            If not...

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #36
              Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

              Originally posted by tsquare View Post
              Including one or more of them nuking one or more of the others? You do know that's where this will all lead, right?

              If 'we all' are good with a 'small' nuclear war with millions dead... then yeah, that works.

              If not...
              You and I both know if it comes down to it the israelis will shoot first. And its not any of our business unless there is a danger of an international escalation IE if it aint gonna start The Big One I don't want to hear about or have anything to do with it. Sometimes pickin at it just makes it worse and spreads it. This is one of those times.
              If they want to nuke each other its none of our damn business. Let them. They will do it regardless of what we try and do. We've NEVER had a successful deal in the middle east it ALWAYS goes ploin shaped. Whats the definition of insanity?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #37
                Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                Any nuclear exchange is going to have long term negative consequences for everyone, not just the warring parties.

                It's bad enough that the US and Soviet Union stood at the brink of annihilation for decades. Its far better that we prevent anyone else from reigniting that, by force if need be.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #38
                  Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  "Blessed are the peacemakers"

                  I don't expect anyone who leans right to like this. I don't expect the right to like it even if it turns out well for all involved. They will not like anything Obama is involved in. But they will not be the final judge, thank god, history will. And personally I hope history proves them wrong, not because I like Obama but because I am sick and tired of these never ending wars, and the killing of americans who joined the military to defend americans and America. We have not had a war in defense since ww2. We have even told lies to get into some of these non defensive wars.

                  And so I applaud these attempts by this administration. If the attempts fail, well at least we tried. Blessed are the peacemakers.

                  BTW, it is well known that Iran wanting to remove Israel from the map was a misinterpretation of the language used by Iran. How handy was that? And still you hear this being bantered about, the mis translation of language. Just another lie from the war mongers who make sure their own sons don't serve in these wars and conflicts. We send the lower class folks to die for the upper crust with their bank accounts filled by defense contracts.

                  Truth is, there are some people who would rather keep Iran an enemy. But how long did it take america to create the atomic bomb from scratch? If Iran wanted a nuke they would already have it. How long have they supposedly been working on one? LOL. And even if they did have one, so what? Would they destroy their own nation just to shoot one off at Israel? Israel would unleash their arsenal before Iran's missile even left their own air space.

                  I have no doubts that in the future the use of nukes won't be much of an issue. We are probably closer than you think at taking out any missile before it could reach its destination. When we have that capability, and others don't, that is a game changer. And we will have that, if we already don't. Since we could not win another war like ww2, due to our deindustrialization with China now having our lost industrial power, being the top dog in nuclear defense is the only ace card we will have.

                  The only real threat that faces the US today is communist china. That is where all of our attention should be directed, instead of these backwater nations in the middle east. China is a real and present danger going into the future. And the size of the military they could muster with 1.5 billion people should be our concern, instead of being so distracted by these back water nations in the deserts of the middle east.
                  Sorry, BD, but there is way too much nonsense in your post.

                  First, History will not be the final judge: Thank God GOD will be the final judge and, at least at that point, these miscreants, liars, and neanderthals will get what they so desperately deserve. I'm content that God's answer is already being voiced ... but it will only come in HIS time, not mine.

                  Second, Americans joined the war on terror to prevent more killing of Americans (a la' The Twin Towers being torn down by terrorist acts) and that was the jist of our first incursion into Afghanistan. I won't defend the incursion into Iraq because I have questions about that but we should never have left Afghanistan un-finished: We should have stayed there until the job was done.

                  Third, you will have to explain what you mean by "well known" in regards to the translation of Ahmadinejad's comment. While he obviously did not use the specific phrase "wiped off the map," he slightly misquoted the Ayatollah Khomeni when he said "...Our dear Imam ordered that this Jerusalem- occupying regime must be erased from the page of time. This was a very wise statement." Regardless of the specific words he used, he nevertheless advocated the absolute destruction of Israel (btw, the misquote came in becaue Khomeni actually said "the arena of time" not "the page of time"). Nice attempt to minimize his intent.

                  if iran wanted a nuke????? You have got to be kidding! India and Pakistan already have nukes ... and you are seriously contending they don't really want a nuke of their own? I want some of that stuff YOU'RE smoking! Yes, China is a real threat: I agree. But the existence of that threat does in no way minimize threats from others. Jeepers, wake up and smell the coffee.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #39
                    Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                    I knew there'd be a thread like this on here without even having to visit the forum.

                    As Blue Doggy said, congrats are in order to the Obama admin who's foreign policy successes just keep piling up, to the ire of conservatives who once thought it was their sacred ground. So no, I'm not surprised anyone here is attacking Obama because they attack Obama no matter what, all the time, weather they have an argument or not. Doesn't matter how good or bad the deal is. To think they are even trying to insert Obamacare into this is just...I don't know. There doesn't seem to be an appropriate world to describe the absolute ass-hole-ness of someone who would actually do that. For someone to say a deal that Senator Obama said he'd pursue as a candidate, a deal that is a year in the making, after months of secret negotiations, continued even after an Iranian election, with such geo-political implications is just because Healthcare.gov isn't working properly is so profoundly stupid I can't spend any more time on it. It's self explanatory.

                    As for the deal itself, it's exactly what needed to happen. Inspectors are sent in, their programs are frozen and they get 6 months to prove they are serious. There isn't a downside here UNLESS, unless you want to attack Iran and stand to profit from it. That the same people who rushed to war in Iraq are so against giving peace a chance in Iran is a tragedy. How quickly right wingers forget the toll from the ill-advised war of choice: 5000 dead services members and tens of thousands of critically injured. It's simply incredible that a deal that might actually avert a similar war is quickly dismissed. Those people are not to be taken seriously. They had their chance to prove cowboy diplomacy worked and it didn't. History so far judges that war as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders and strategic mistakes of all time.

                    Will Iran finally disarm? Who knows. As of now, it's irrelevant. If they don't, you are back in the same position with a stronger hand because peace was given a chance first. And if they do, well you just saved tens or hundreds of thousands of lives by electing Barack Obama who pursued diplomacy instead of the next George Bush who places less importance on diplomacy and soldiers' lives.

                    As for Israel..do they have veto power over your foreign policy? Is Bibi your SECSTATE? He can shut the fuck up and worry about his own business. America would never let anyone attack them so this is just fluff.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #40
                      Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                      Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                      Any nuclear exchange is going to have long term negative consequences for everyone, not just the warring parties.

                      It's bad enough that the US and Soviet Union stood at the brink of annihilation for decades. Its far better that we prevent anyone else from reigniting that, by force if need be.
                      Yes, lets stop the mid range mexican standoff that'll pretty much only destroy europe, and instead make it a long range mexican standoff involving signifcantly more powerful and more numerous parties with even more nukes to say nothing of bio and chem weapons.
                      Let them have their rock fight, until we can steam roll them in an hour and I mean ALL 3 parties, we need to stay out of it. Otherwise just let them destroy their part of the world so it doesn't spread to ours as well. Triage buddy.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #41
                        Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        Yes, lets stop the mid range mexican standoff that'll pretty much only destroy europe, and instead make it a long range mexican standoff involving signifcantly more powerful and more numerous parties with even more nukes to say nothing of bio and chem weapons.
                        Let them have their rock fight, until we can steam roll them in an hour and I mean ALL 3 parties, we need to stay out of it. Otherwise just let them destroy their part of the world so it doesn't spread to ours as well. Triage buddy.
                        You can't limit the fallout to "their" part of the world.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #42
                          Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          We shouldn't be supporting the israelis the saudis or the iranians. Let them handle their own shit.
                          Including one or more of them nuking one or more of the others? You do know that's where this will all lead, right?

                          If 'we all' are good with a 'small' nuclear war with millions dead... then yeah, that works.

                          If not...

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #43
                            Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                            Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                            Interesting thread.

                            So; channeling Nevel Chamberlin . . . Is it just possible - possible I say that Chamberlin went to Germany because the German Hanrovians were - by blood members of the English crown, and there Chamberlin was obligated to make an offering? I mean; sounds like a good strategy to me. Time Magazine made Adolph Man of the Year right?
                            Well, I have to admit that I recall the press conference Chamberlin held at the airport, I believe it was, holding up a piece of paper and declaring that it was peace in our time, and the piece of paper turned out to be meaningless.

                            Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                            So, now with Iran: New president. Isn't it just possible that with new leadership, there might be a foreign policy obligation to make an offering? Whether Iran is lying or not, just as with Chamberlian and Hitler, is not the point. From a strategic and policy perspective, the onus of said agreements are now on Iran. It i up to them to live up to the obligation. You say they won't? Could be, but because - we were the bigger country, we have the more honorable position. Reagan negotiated and signed agreements with the Soviets yeah? So, were the Soviets lying . . .? And when agreement was reached, everybody cheered right?

                            So I find the anti Obama logic to be flawed; based on nothing really. Moreover, Israel has nothing to say about who we treaty with anad who we don't. And! Saudi Aribia is no friend of ours. They've been playin us like a patsy for years!

                            And as for Syria; It's the Russian overseers watching the piggy bank there, so again, the anti Obama logic is flawed.
                            You can believe that Iran is going to comply, but I don't believe it. I think that Iran is playing Obama like a patsy, from the perspective that Obama is so desperate right now to change the conversation away from his big lie ObamaCare, oh, excuse me, Un-Affordable-Try-To-Get-Care, that Obamas' in a weak position and is ready to bargain, ready to give in a bunch, which is clear he did, in that Israel is screaming as are the Saudis.

                            Saudi's playing us, we play Saudis back. We buy a lot of their oil, they need a buyer, and our Navy keeps the straights clear for commercial shipping. So there's a co-dependance, buyer and seller, protector and protectorate. They after all, bought all the oil and fuel we needed for the first Gulf war. I think we have more common interests than disparate interests.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #44
                              Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                              Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                              You can't limit the fallout to "their" part of the world.
                              you can if it stays midrange and they only pop off a few a piece (which is all you need and all theyre liable to have). (see all those missile tests we conducted that totally didn't infect the world with nu-clear radiation) That's why I said "pretty much only destroy europe". Let europe handle it, they are in the fallout zone. WE are not. LET THEM DO IT FOR THEMSELVES. We need to stop subsidizing their defense. All its gotten us is trouble because stupid people point to their socialism which WE protect and defend and pay for and say "why can't we have that?". Because no one pays for our shit but us. Let them have a taste, guarantee you it shuts them right up.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #45
                                Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                                Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                                Including one or more of them nuking one or more of the others? You do know that's where this will all lead, right?

                                If 'we all' are good with a 'small' nuclear war with millions dead... then yeah, that works.

                                If not...
                                I thought I answered this already? Yeah dude even if they all 3 nuke each other. It would cost less lives than us getting involved and adding MORE nukes to the tally. To say nothing of russia and china.

                                Like I said: The answer to a mexican stand off is not another party with two uzis instead of one flintlock a piece. The answer to a mexican stand off is all sides realize they don't want to die. Religious fanatics don't do that so often, you know? The answer to not getting shot up in someone elses mexican standoff is to not try to get involved with someone elses mexican standoff.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X